Talk:Pioneer One

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion[edit]

Main page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer One

Please do not delete this article. Its about a tv-series made for free by mostly volunteers. If you really want to delete it please consider watching it yourself first before deleting General Staal (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue is about whether the show is any good or not - it's whether having an article in Wikipedia reflects a sufficient public interest in the show. Wikipedia's policy is to reflect whatever is significant in the public interest, not to help create interest. Gymnophoria (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Van Gogh existed today you would actually delete his wikipedia page according to that logic. General Staal (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. However, if you have a problem with/question about Wikipedia's policies, then you need to focus on actually changing the policy, not just getting the rules bent for one article. I know Pioneer One is a very cool project and all (I'm downloading my copy as I type!), but if the general consensus is that it doesn't merit an article (whether because it's not notable, not widely-covered in news, or whatever), then that's what we have to go with. 24.247.162.139 (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus. It's extraordinarily noteworthy, representing as it does a major experiment in developing new business models for the broadcast industry. Media watchers (and the RIAA, MPAA et al) are watching this with a keen eye, as I'm sure you must be well aware. I never saw such an arbitrary 'deletion' tag on WP, ever. Disgraceful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.126.198 (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please take discussion of its merits to its deletion discussion(link now works), otherwise no one will see them (this is 24.247.162.139, btw) Fletch the Mighty (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of you wiki-editors are so god damn zealous it's disgusting. How in the hell is having an article about an independent and little known TV series somehow either an endorsement or attempt to gather public interest, Gymnophoria? And if it is clear-cut wiki-policy to not have articles of little interest, explain to me the HUNDREDS of thousands of orphan articles that haven't been updated in, literally, years. Sometimes, just sometimes, the best policy is to not do a damn thing. Try doing that for once. Also, Fletch, the deletion page doesn't exist. 64.138.208.92 (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little outrageous to submit this article for deletion on grounds it lacks "sufficient public interest in the show" the very same day the article is created and literally days after the show was released. Maybe in a few months it could have been legitimate. Now with the show being advertised on the front page of thepiratebay.org it's certain this article will see lots of traffic. It also has the novelty of being the first series to ever attempt distributing just on torrents. That alone is enough to justify an article. The implication that this deletion submission was malicious or had ulterior motives wouldn't be unfounded.122.17.159.71 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it, I really don't. there are a lot of new tv shows that have just stated(persons unknown, neighbors from hell) and they get a wiki page and its all fine, Here for some reason the rules apply and there not a chance. the simple fact that people try to defend this show here shows there is public interest. I don't want to use wiki as advertising, I just want an article on the show I like. So if a person hears about this new show and googles it, he sees there is a wiki page on her and can read about it here like ANY OTHER NEW TV SHOW THERE IS. Thanks to anybody reading this. Also, bare in mind that the show got 2000$ in donations in two days running show how people interested with this show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.37.36 (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindenting) Oh, for crying out loud. Take five seconds to look around, and you'll notice that I'm one of the people pushing for the page to be kept. I love the project, I think it's awesome, and I definitely think it should have its own article. But "it's an awesome show" is not going to be enough of a good argument for the closing admin of the deletion discussion, who undoubtedly will have no information about the show whatsoever except for our arguments on the deletion discussion page. So we need to make sure those are actually valid arguments in keeping with Wikipedia's deletion and notability policies, or they aren't going to be considered good arguments. Trust me, we are not the first fans who have had to go through this process, and we're not being singled out for oppression. AfD's are extremely common for new articles of this type. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky. It is not the first "free-to-torrent" project; so that is not really noteable. It _might_ be the first successful television series outside of television, but this remains to be seen. Having an article on Wikipedia is a promotional tool; people write fake, raving reviews for lousy indie films on imdb in the hope that it might take off. Great pilot, though. Really liked it. Hope it works out. I suppose we are all rooting for them; _but_ -- until van gough actually is an internationally acclaimed artist, he probably shouldnt have a wikipedia entry. So sorry about that.84.211.53.251 (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for keeping this page. It has more torrent seeds than the True Blood season opener. --24.5.136.42 (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched the first episode of Pioneer One on Youtube (via its legitimate promotion through 'Likes' on Facebook) and instantly after that I came to Wikipedia to learn more about. The idea of deleting this wiki seems ridiculous - it may have been premature and Machavellian (from a advertising stance) to have set up a wiki so soon - but it clearly has developed a following, how many ppl torrent it for gods sake? More than that its produced by the same ppl that made the award-winning Lion Share film, so ofc it is of significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.74.65 (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.98.2 (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Coverage[edit]

I'm not editing the article directly because I have a personal interest (involved in the distribution). But for those looking for mainstream media coverage:

Danohuiginn (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NONENG applies here. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although it does say we can use non-English sources if no English sources of equal quality exist, if necessary. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, and there is currently a French ref in the article.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not editing this, because I have a persona interest. But here's an English language piece in the New York Times Freakonomics blog:

As a side-note this release has now been downloaded just under 500,000 times in around ten days, and received $20,000 in donations. It's also been featured on Russian national TV. Hope that helps with the Delete discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.28.179 (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those references, they can really help with the article. Luckily, it did get kept in the deletion discussion (the result was no consensus, which defaults to keeping the article), but if it gets re-listed at a later date, this will definitely help. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Downloadlink[edit]

since this seems to be the first tv-show where a direct download link can be added to the article i wonder how to add such a link. is it good to just upload the show to commons and place a link or could it be embedded somehow? -- trl52 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.233.241 (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what has been done for other things of this type (where there is a legal download link available) is simply adding a link to the page where it can be downloaded in the External Links section. It's already there (the "VODO page and download links" link), so I don't think anything else needs to be done. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original release versus Refix?[edit]

What are the differences between the original pilot (June 15) and the "refix" pilot (June 30)? It says "re-encoded for better video quality along with some other minor fixes". What fixes? 24.57.216.72 (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production History[edit]

This would belong to that section. However, it not meeting the standards as valid reference material for Wikipedia, I'll put it here until I see it verified by such entities that do so.

Three versions of episode 1 can be found amongst BitTorrent peers. The first two are the original pilot, featuring the actor Matthew Foster as Dr. Walzer and a different introductory scene which is set in an observatory rather than the cockpit of an airliner. Between these two, some of the changes in the Refix version include addition of subtitles and, for example, using “astronomical” when initially “astrological” was used.
<ref name="S01E01A1">magnet:?xt=urn:btih:07a9de9750158471c3302e4e95edb1107f980fa6&dn=Pioneer.One.S01E01.720p.x264-VODO</ref> <ref name="S01E01A2">magnet:?xt=urn:btih:38edee1e687462442e40fa8e988d67f198ae7dfc&dn=Pioneer.One.S01E01.REFIX.720p.x264-VODO</ref> <ref name="S01">magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3a4be1d48c31dfa62bf52958f3fdca3d5ce91cf1&dn=Pioneer.One.SEASON1.720p.x264-VODO</ref>

— JamesEG (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

coordinates at end of show - Calgary coord conclusion is unfounded[edit]

I didn't want to edit the article directly, as I'm not a regular contributor, but the coordinates on the Russian terminal at the end of the show, are 51°1'114°1' putting this into any mapping software or website, finds a location in Russia. Calgary would be -51°1'114°1' As it is supposed to be a Russian terminal, I doubt the "-" was implied, but it does imply that it could be a navigation mistake as part of the show plot to get to Canada accidentally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.199.66 (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

Should the Awards section be merged into Reception? There is currently only one award.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My crystal all says that there will be more awards soon. Merging with Reception is fine with me. Pburka (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section[edit]

I've removed the section below as being OR. In the hopes that someone might be able to cite this information to a source that explicitly mentions this info in the context of this movie, I've transported the section to here on the discussion page:

Error
"One of the characters tells his version of what happened to Stanislav Petrov. Stanislav Petrov was not exiled to Siberia for not launching missiles. Moreover, on January 19, 2006 in New York at UN headquarters the international public organization "Association of World Citizens" awarded Stanislav Petrov a special award "The man who prevented a nuclear war."

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that “original research”. Maybe it is, but who cares: it's an observation that most people won't refute. However, I agree that it isn't an error, per se, because this being a work of fiction they might choose a different version of historical events, or even have some explanation as to why they differ. If they complete work on second issue, there could be reason to include that remark about Stanislav in a section on the characters or storyline. — JamesEG (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pioneer One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pioneer_One&oldid=1209766002"